Re: [ipwave] 5G deployment status

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Dirk - thank you for the pointer.

We consider the opportunity to test interoperability with our CFIO/CFOI
software that transmits CAM messages on IP on several media such as
802.11-OCB and LTE.

But I do not have the specifications of what it means 'C-V2X'.  I
understand it is a Qualcomm acronym, but what are the specifics?

I am asking because we send CAM on IP on LTE and we call that 'LTE-V2X'.
If our 'LTE-V2X' concept approaches the 'C-V2X' concept then we will be
happy to go to Malaga, pay the eventual fees, and test interoperability.
  Otherwise no.

(some of our partners also send CAM on IP on LTE; we interoperate with
them ok).

Thanks,

Alex


Le 17/10/2019 à 10:36, [e-mail] a écrit :
> Hi all,
> 
> this information may be interesting for some of you also:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> ETSI, in partnership with 5GAA and with the support of the European 
> Commission, is organizing the 1st C‑V2X Plugtests™ event, hosted by 
> DEKRA in Malaga from 02 to 06 December 2019.
> 
> The registrations for the 1^st CV2X Plugtests event is now open. The 
> deadline to register is *15 November 2019*.
> 
> https://www.etsi.org/events/1659-cv2x-plugtests
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Dirk
> 
> *From:*its <[e-mail]> *On Behalf Of *Mr. Jaehoon Paul 
> Jeong *Sent:* Donnerstag, 26. September 2019 16:47 *To:* Alexandre 
> Petrescu <[e-mail]> *Cc:* 
> [e-mail]; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong 
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail] *Subject:* Re: [ipwave] 5G 
> deployment status
> 
> Hi Alex,
> 
> Thanks for your opinion and status of 5G.
> 
> I think IPWAVE needs to consider IPv6 over C-V2X based on 5G because
> 
> C-V2X has higher bandwidth than 802.11-OCB based on WAVE.
> 
> My SKKU group is studying how to efficiently support IPv6 over C-V2X 
> in vehicular networks.
> 
> This will be a possible WG item for IPWAVE WG.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Paul
> 
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 9:50 PM Alexandre Petrescu 
> <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Le 25/09/2019 à 16:13, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
>> Hi
>> 
>> Le 20/09/2019 à 04:23, Sharon Barkai and Dick Roy ([RR]) wrote: 
>> [...]
>>>> */[RR] This is a really long story, however, C-V2X is being
> specified
>>>> as an alternative to US DSRC, not as a cellular access 
>>>> technology since that’s already available and deployed.  The 
>>>> reason LTE
> Release
>>>> 14 and successors is being specified has nothing to do with its
>>>> lineage as a child of cellular; in fact, it is provably a
> square peg
>>>> being forced into a round hole and we all know how that 
>>>> generally ends up, and that’s a story for another day/*
>>>> 
>>>> The 5G evolution is supposed to match the latency of peer to
> peer WiFi.
>> 
>> When that matches, WiFi will have leaped forward to below 
>> 100micro-second latency.  This was so (cellular catching up with a
>>  leaping forward WiFi latency) since the invention of WiFi 20
> years ago,
>> and it wont change.  It's a constant of evolution.
>> 
>>>> */[RR] 5G is nothing but hype at the moment
>> 
>> Here is a more precise status, according to my personal
> understanding.
>> This obviously differs from many people's understandings, who may 
>> be more knowledgeable.
>> 
>> In France, frequencies for use in 5G radio would start to be
> discussed
>> now in September, with allocation towards December.  The
> allocation is
>> similar, but not quite like, the process that was used for 3G:
> auction
>> sales.  The differences from 3G are: (1) it is not expected to
> generate
>> huge revenues for gov't and (2) some sales, like of the 3.5GHz 
>> band, would actually be a re-allocation from what was previously
> allocated to
>> wimax operators  (e.g. SDH in France) and to City Authority (like
> Mayor)
>> in places where there was no operator).
>> 
>> Obviously, until these frequencies are allocated one cant really
> talk
>> about 5G deployment on public roads, even if...
>> 
>> If one wants to talk about 5G like when talking a higher
> bandwidth and
>> lower latency than 4G, then one assumes 4G to be 50ms latency and 
>> 2Mbit/s bandwidth.  One can talk then about 25ms latency and
> 10Mbit/s,
>> and claim that to be 5G.  But it is not 5G.  It is just another
> Class or
>> Category of 4G.  In theory, one can still be 4G and run at 1Gbps
> (e.g.
>> Category 16).
>> 
>> Also, one can talk about a higher bandwidth outdoors network by
> running
>> 802.11 WiFi on 5.4 GHz and, why not, at 5.9GHz.
>> 
>> Colleagues call these 'acrobatics 5G'.
>> 
>> This is when one wonders: what is 5G anyways? with its associated 
>> question: why was the predecessor of 5G called 'LTE' (Long Term 
>> Evolution), or where is the long term?  Is 5G LTE?
>> 
>> With respect to other countries, I heard two recent
> announcements, about
>> Spain and Germany.
>> 
>> They both claim 5G is deployed in the respective areas.
>> 
>> This claims 15 cities in Spain on June 15th, by Vodafone:
>> 
> https://www.xataka.com/empresas-y-economia/red-5g-comercial-vodafone-espana-tiene-fecha-lanzamiento-15-ciudades-15-junio
>
>
> 
>> 
>> 
>> This claims 5 cities in Germany, but it does not say when, by
> Deutsche
>> Telekom: 
>> https://www.telekom.de/start/netzausbau?wt_mc=alias_1070_netzausbau
>
>>
>> 
> 
>> As hardware for end users, this is the situation now: - there is
>> no 5G smartphone for sale in France.  I guess it is
> the same
>> in more countries.  If it were different, it would be an isolation
>>  easily spot by many. - iphone 11 just launched features 
>> 'Gigabit-class LTE' and 'LTE Advanced' but no '5G'.  They run on 
>> 'LTE Bands' which are your
> typical
>> frequencies below 5GHz for cellular communications, but
> nowhere like a
>> 26GHz of 5G.  No such band is called a '5G band'.
> 
> Further details after searches of public documents:
> 
> iphone 11 pro understands a 5G frequency band:
> 
> it is specified to understand several frequency bands, among which 
> also TD-LTE Band number 42, which is 3400MHz - 3600MHz.  This band
> is a 5G band.  Part of this band (3490MHz - 3600MHz) is being
> considered for allocation by regulator ARCEP.  It has not yet been
> allocated, but under discussion.
> 
> ARCEP considers to also allocate Band 43 at 3600MHz - 3800MHz, for 
> 5G. But this band is not covered by iphone 11 specs.
> 
> ARCEP is silent about the range 3400MHz-3490MHz.  I suspect there 
> might be some errors here.
> 
> iphone 11 pro also understands TD-LTE Band 46 at 5150 MHz - 5925 MHz,
> which covers WiFi 5.4GHz and 802.11-OCB at 5.9GHz.  I suspect there
> would be some clashes here between deployed Road-Side Units and 
> iphones.
> 
> For highways and roads requirements, ARCEP seems to plan to require 
> the licensee to cover them by December 2025.  And the required 
> bandwidth is between 50mbit/s to 100Mbit/s and 10ms latency.  These 
> figures are obviously little incitative, because 2025 is very late, 
> 50mbit/s is what 4G already does and 10ms is much higher than 1ms 
> 802.11-OCB today.
> 
> On another hand, ARCEP requires the 5G licensee to support IPv6, 
> starting end of 2020. (in French: "Le  titulaire  est  tenu  de 
> rendre son  réseau  mobile  compatible  avec  le  protocole  de 
> routage  IPv6 à compter du 31décembre2020.").  This means that by 
> that time, if IPv6 under its form IPv6-over-OCB does not see a huge 
> deployment compared to just 802.11-OCB WSMP, it might be that 
> IPv6-over-5G on routes would be more likely.  Which may raise a 
> question of the potential usefulness of a spec IPv6-over-5G.
> 
> So, this is to say that where I live it is not very clear how these 
> things will unfold.
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
>> - one can buy off the shelf modules, like miniPCIe (I have a
> list) that
>> go very high in terms of bandwidth, well beyond what normal 4G
> would
>> do, but couldnt really use them at that high parameters.
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>>>> and simply matching the latency would be no reason to switch 
>>>> from DSRC to another access technology for V2V safety, though 
>>>> nothing prevents the addition of 5G NR access technologies in 
>>>> ITS stations (aka OBUs) for other uses. /*
>> 
>> I agree.
>> 
>> [...]
>> 
>> Alex
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list 
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
> 
> _______________________________________________ its mailing list 
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]> 
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
> 
> 
> --
> 
> =========================== Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor Department of Software Sungkyunkwan University
> Office: [phone] Email: [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>, [e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]> Personal Homepage: 
> http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php 
> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php>
>